Competition Enforcement Focus: Dark Patterns in Asia-Pacific

What Are Dark Patterns?

Dark patterns are user interface design, defaults, and choice architecture that lead users to take actions they did not intend, such as subscribing to services, sharing personal data, or making purchases. Common examples of dark patterns include false or misleading scarcity prompts ("Only 2 left!" when inventory levels are not actually low), fees that only appear late in the checkout process, confusing cancellation procedures, misleading opt-out options, and persistent pop-ups that encourage users to take certain actions.

Why Dark Patterns Raise Antitrust Concerns

Dark patterns have traditionally been addressed through consumer protection or privacy laws. But enforcers, particularly in Japan, are now recognizing that these practices may also raise competition law concerns. This represents an expansion of enforcement risk for digital businesses. Key antitrust theories include:

• Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position: Large digital platforms may abuse their market position by using problematic interface designs. When a platform makes it difficult to cancel subscriptions, switch services, or exercise data rights, it may be leveraging its position in ways that would not succeed in a more competitive market.
• Raising Switching Costs: Dark patterns can make it harder for users to move to competing platforms, even when better alternatives exist. This can reduce competitive pressure and allow incumbents to maintain market power.
• Distorting Consumer Choice: Effective competition relies on consumers being able to make informed decisions. Problematic interfaces—including false urgency messaging, hidden fees, and misleading defaults—can undermine this, impairing the competitive process.
• Foreclosing Competition: Some dark patterns may prevent users from accessing or switching to competing services by, for example, making it difficult to export data, delete accounts, or change default settings. This can raise barriers to entry.
• Practical Implications: Competition law enforcement typically carries more significant consequences than consumer protection enforcement, including larger financial penalties, personal liability for executives, and greater reputational impact. In Japan, the Japan Fair Trade Commission's ("JFTC") willingness to apply the Antimonopoly Act to dark patterns means businesses may face enforcement from both consumer protection and competition authorities for the same conduct.

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Approach

The following sections outline how regulators in Singapore, China, Japan, Southeast Asia ("ASEAN"), and Australia are approaching dark patterns, including the legal frameworks, regulatory priorities, and recent enforcement activity in each jurisdiction.

Singapore

Enforcement Approach: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore ("CCS") treats dark patterns as serious violations of fair trading principles under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. The CCS considers problematic design choices to fall within the scope of prohibited deceptive conduct.

Enforcement Focus: The CCS has become one of the region's most visible enforcers on dark patterns. Recent actions include investigations into fake countdown timers, false discount claims, fabricated visitor counts, manipulative product rankings, subscription traps, and hidden charges. In May 2026, the CCS announced action against three online retailers for creating artificial urgency through fake visitor numbers and countdown clocks. The regulator has also scrutinized online travel platforms for scarcity prompts, popularity indicators, and fees that appeared only at checkout, securing voluntary interface modifications. The CCS has published extensive consumer guidance on dark patterns, including "fake ranking," "sneak into basket," "subscription traps," and hidden costs.

China

Enforcement Approach: The State Administration for Market Regulation ("SAMR") has implemented comprehensive compliance guidelines for internet platforms, addressing deceptive marketing, drip pricing (revealing costs incrementally), and subscription traps. This reflects China's broader focus on platform conduct and consumer protection in digital markets.

Enforcement Focus: Chinese enforcers have taken direct action against major technology and e-commerce platforms. In 2021, SAMR imposed an RMB 18.2 billion (~US$2.8 billion) fine on one platform for abusive practices and broad quasi-regulatory requirements, including the protection of consumers' rights "to know," to "fair transactions," and to "free choice," among others. Subsequent actions have targeted platforms for practices such as difficult cancellation processes, pressuring pop-ups, and barriers to account deletion.

Japan

Enforcement Approach: Japan takes a dual-track approach to enforcement. The Japan Fair Trade Commission ("JFTC") has clarified that problematic website designs can be addressed not only under consumer protection legislation but also under the Antimonopoly Act ("AMA") as alleged unfair trade practices, such as interference with competitors' transactions and/or abuses of superior bargaining position. The Consumer Affairs Agency ("CAA") addresses these practices through consumer protection frameworks.

Enforcement Focus: The CAA has taken action against subscription services, including streaming platforms and mobile applications, for cancellation processes that required excessive steps or obscured the unsubscribe option. The JFTC has investigated platforms for abuse of superior bargaining position through problematic interface design. In March 2025, the JFTC hosted an international symposium specifically examining the role of competition policy in addressing dark patterns, arguing that such practices can harm not only consumers but also businesses that compete fairly. The JFTC's research center has also published a discussion paper identifying specific dark pattern categories, including "roach motel" designs (easy to enter, difficult to exit), as potentially unlawful under the AMA, and analyzing theories of competitive harm.

ASEAN Regional Approach

Enforcement Approach: The ASEAN Committee on Consumer Protection has made dark patterns a regional priority. Through the ASEAN Regional Information Campaign on Dark Patterns, the bloc is raising awareness and working to standardize how member states address problematic design practices. The goal is to create a more consistent regulatory environment across Southeast Asia.

Cross-Border Coordination: ASEAN enforcers are increasingly sharing information and coordinating their actions. Thailand's Office of the Consumer Protection Board and Malaysia's Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs have launched investigations into e-commerce platforms for hidden fees and false urgency messaging. Indonesia's consumer protection authority has addressed misleading discount representations on marketplace platforms. This coordination reflects the cross-border nature of major digital platforms operating in the region.

Australia

Enforcement Approach: Australia's Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ("CCA") arguably does not prohibit dark patterns in its current form. However, following concerns raised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC"), proposed amendments currently before the Australian Parliament include an explicit prohibition of dark patterns. This will form a part of the Australian Consumer Law within the CCA. Manipulative and false practices for consumer goods in digital markets is one of the ACCC's current annual enforcement priorities.

Cross-Border Coordination: The ACCC is a highly active agency that holds significant influence within the region. In particular, the ACCC commonly attends international regulatory conferences and learning sessions to hear and share its law-enforcement experience and practices.